"STAND YOUR GROUND"--IS IT A GOOD LAW??

What about the 99.9% of the people who are not "victims of fearful gun toting unstable folks hiding behind a silly law" but carry a gun for personal protection yet you never hear about? Should they not have that right because someone else is all butt-hurt that they are allowed to do so?

You're not going to like the answer.

yup.

it's just like when you were a kid.

"this is why we can't have nice things..."

Good thing we are adults though and we don't need to live our lives by the lowest common denominator. Instead, we live under the rule of law and the law says we get guns.

I am for taking away the right to go out and blow away people for no better reason than "Er - I felt threatened. Yeah, that's it."

Republicans feel threatened by poor people.

That's not what it says at all.

I don't know what fantasyland you live in, but lowest common denominator is how life works...

Zimmerman had lost sight of him. If Martin had "stood his ground", he'd either have given up waiting and gone home or he'd still be standing there.

Previous laws required a crime victims to try to flee before using deadly force. Somebody finally figured out that was unreasonable.

But that's how it works.

this is a simple case of the cure is worse than the disease.

I'm much more worried about gun toting wanna-be Bronson 'fraidy cats than I am the criminals...

Toting a weapon with the power of life or death heightens one's senses to the need to defend in situations where one with no gun would seek to defuse the situation and count both sides damned lucky to walk away unharmed.

Why does no one propose amending the Florida law on the definition of manslaughter (7.7, section 782.07 c) ) to stipulate that provoking a conflict while armed is included in the definition of culpable negligence? The amendment could stipulate that it supersedes a defense under section 776.013 (the stand your ground statue).
It seems to me that this would be politically more feasible in the face of gun rights advocates because it does not amount to an obligation to retreat.

A statue to Trayvon Martin, maybe..

I don't dispute your statement exactly, but I don't think TM was picked on because he was poor. I am not even sure his color was much of a factor although only Z could know for certain. There is something about an unfamiliar young person, unescorted, dressed in a hoodie, that triggers the stereotype for many people. Overlooking that many young persons like to imitate in appearance and mannerisms gang members and toughs in general. Having an assumed authority and a gun to back it up was more responsibility than Z could manage.

Adults let their governments commit heinous war crimes and ongoing vicious terrorist acts, McG. I don't think so.

Well, the statement I made was very vague and cryptic so I'll explain it.
(You probably read it in the way that makes the most sense, but you didn't guess my meaning.)

I'm not saying Martin was shot because he was poor, since, from the little I've heard, he wasn't all that poor.
(I DO think his race had a ton to do with his death, but now I digress.)

When I made the cryptic comment "Republicans feel threatened by poor people" I really wasn't talking about this murder, so much as I was talking about the next murder -- or, perhaps, about the next few hundred.

The Trayvon Martin murder is the tip of the outermost icicle of the iceberg. These laws give rich, powerful, influential people the ability to murder anyone they like. All one has to do is get some old fraternity buddies or chums from the country club to swear that one acted in self-defense. (Remember, it's not what happened; it's what you can prove).

Of course, killing someone in this way means a great deal of risk for those involved. But if the target is a prolific liberal activist and an advocate of the human rights of the poor, let's say, and frequently walks the streets alone at night, the risk might be worth the reward. The risk also goes down considerably if Cornelius Vandergun IV decides to commit his political killing in a district where the jury will almost certainly be sympathetic to his own rightwing viewpoint and violently hostile to the victim's viewpoint.

In a few years, driving a car covered in Free Tibet stickers could get a guy killed at night in the wrong affluent suburb.

To summarize:

SYG =

I don't know of any civilization throughout history in which killing people who are trying to kill you was considered wrong.

Maybe there was one or two that I'm not aware of.

From what I know of the law it doesn't include giving guns to anyone.

I just know that someone going to jail because they killed a burglar or a mugger doesn't seem like justice to me. Maybe it doesn't happen very often, but when it does it's not right.

If this law is able to exonerate actual murderers then it's got a problem. I haven't seen any evidence that says it is though.

When someone crosses the line and does something we all agree is wrong and truly uncivilized, if it goes horribly wrong for them then I'm not all that sympathetic.

Whether this happened with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, I can't say, but I do know his defense didn't rely on this law.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I was under the impression the Zimmerman defense did not invoke "Stand Your Ground".